High Court · 2025

District Hardoi, a first information report was lodged against him on the basis of alleged confessional statement given by one Saryoo, a Tractor Driver. The first information report was registered as Case Crime No.373 of 2012 under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. in Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi. It is also submitted that on the basis of judicial custody due to lodging of aforesaid first information report, petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in submission of enquiry report dated

11.09.2012 exonerating petitioner from all charges levelled against him. On the basis of aforesaid enquiry report, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Hardoi has also accepted the same by means of order dated 19.09.2012.

4. It is therefore submitted that once petitioner has already been exonerated in enquiry proceedings, there is no provision of law under which service and retiral benefits can be withheld only on account of pendency of criminal case in view of fact that petitioner has superannuated from service on 30.04.2014. Learned counsel has adverted to Division Bench judgments of this Court in Bangali Babu Misra v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2003(3) AWC 1760(LB) as well as in Mahesh Bal Bhardwaj v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another, reported in 207(10) ADJ 561(LB)(DB).

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but admits that petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry which was conducted and as per order dated 19.09.2012. It is submitted that since in the criminal proceedings, charge sheet has already been filed against petitioner and the proceedings are pending consideration, petitioner cannot be paid the aforesaid benefits in view of pendency of criminal proceedings in terms of Government Order dated 28.10.1980.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that aforesaid aspects have already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bangali Babu Misra (supra)after adverting to Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations in the following manner:- "8. The aforesaid Regulation also cannot be any assistance in the instant case as it reserves a right to the Government for ordering recovery from the pension of an officer who entered service on or after 7th August 1940 of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings having been caused to the Government by negligence or fraud of such officer during the service. It is not the case of the opposite parties that any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings were initiated or pending against the petitioner for any alleged losses caused to the Government by his negligence or fraud during his service. The Government order has to be read in the light of the provisions of aforesaid Regulations and any interpretation enlarging the scope of the Government order would mean to read beyond the terms of the Government Order and the same would also be rendered contrary to the provisions of Regulations 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which would not be permissible.

9. The petitioner was subjected to a trap case for an alleged amount of Rs. 100/- in the year 1990. The State could not even submit charge-sheet prior to the filing of the writ petition and it was only when this petition was field in this Court, it has been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court on 6th November, 2002. We are not commenting on the criminal proceedings which may take its own course but would like to observe that the State should be prompt in concluding the criminal proceedings, if initiated against the Government servant and the matter should not be allowed to linger as it some times gives undue advantage to the charged Government servant and some times it adversely effects the Government servant and his family. The right of speedy trial, being a fundamental right as declared by the Apex Court could not be defeated or marred in any manner. Since there is no provision under any of the Service Rules or the Government orders or any other law and at least no such provision has been cited before us by the learned Standing Counsel, even if the petitioner is subjected to any punishment in the criminal proceedings that would be of no consequence so far his service tenure or service benefits are concerned. In view of the above we are of the view that the action of opposite parties in not release the entire post retiral benefits or dues to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, cannot be said to be reasonable or legal."

7. The aforesaid judgment has thereafter been followed consistently.

8. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case it is thus evident and as enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court that benefits of gratuity and leave encashment could not have been withheld by the opposite parties merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings.

9. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Kamta Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 19784 of 2016] vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 has also considered Government Order dated 28.10.1980 and has held that the said Government Order does not provide withholding of post-retiral benefits on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- "After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through records of the case, it is found that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner (deceased Kamta Prasad Verma) and as per the Government Order dated 28.10.1980, the gratuity and leave encashment cannot be paid till the finalization of the criminal proceedings. The Government Order dated 28.10.1980 does not provide that during pendency of criminal case, pension or other post retiral benefits can be withheld and the learned State Counsel has failed to bring before this Court on record that there is any provision under the law according to which the pension and other post retiral benefits of a government servant can be deferred or withheld during the pendency of a criminal case. The issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad Ansari (supra) and Harnam Singh Yadav (supra)."

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that impugned order dated 22.06.2023 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari. A further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon competent authority. Petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment.

11. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

District Hardoi, a first information report was lodged against him on the basis of alleged confessional statement given by one Saryoo, a Tractor Driver. The first information report was registered as Case Crime No.373 of 2012 under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. in Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi. It is also submitted that on the basis of judicial custody due to lodging of aforesaid first information report, petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in submission of enquiry report dated

11.09.2012 exonerating petitioner from all charges levelled against him. On the basis of aforesaid enquiry report, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Hardoi has also accepted the same by means of order dated 19.09.2012.

4. It is therefore submitted that once petitioner has already been exonerated in enquiry proceedings, there is no provision of law under which service and retiral benefits can be withheld only on account of pendency of criminal case in view of fact that petitioner has superannuated from service on 30.04.2014. Learned counsel has adverted to Division Bench judgments of this Court in Bangali Babu Misra v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2003(3) AWC 1760(LB) as well as in Mahesh Bal Bhardwaj v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another, reported in 207(10) ADJ 561(LB)(DB).

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but admits that petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry which was conducted and as per order dated 19.09.2012. It is submitted that since in the criminal proceedings, charge sheet has already been filed against petitioner and the proceedings are pending consideration, petitioner cannot be paid the aforesaid benefits in view of pendency of criminal proceedings in terms of Government Order dated 28.10.1980.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that aforesaid aspects have already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bangali Babu Misra (supra)after adverting to Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations in the following manner:- "8. The aforesaid Regulation also cannot be any assistance in the instant case as it reserves a right to the Government for ordering recovery from the pension of an officer who entered service on or after 7th August 1940 of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings having been caused to the Government by negligence or fraud of such officer during the service. It is not the case of the opposite parties that any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings were initiated or pending against the petitioner for any alleged losses caused to the Government by his negligence or fraud during his service. The Government order has to be read in the light of the provisions of aforesaid Regulations and any interpretation enlarging the scope of the Government order would mean to read beyond the terms of the Government Order and the same would also be rendered contrary to the provisions of Regulations 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which would not be permissible.

9. The petitioner was subjected to a trap case for an alleged amount of Rs. 100/- in the year 1990. The State could not even submit charge-sheet prior to the filing of the writ petition and it was only when this petition was field in this Court, it has been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court on 6th November, 2002. We are not commenting on the criminal proceedings which may take its own course but would like to observe that the State should be prompt in concluding the criminal proceedings, if initiated against the Government servant and the matter should not be allowed to linger as it some times gives undue advantage to the charged Government servant and some times it adversely effects the Government servant and his family. The right of speedy trial, being a fundamental right as declared by the Apex Court could not be defeated or marred in any manner. Since there is no provision under any of the Service Rules or the Government orders or any other law and at least no such provision has been cited before us by the learned Standing Counsel, even if the petitioner is subjected to any punishment in the criminal proceedings that would be of no consequence so far his service tenure or service benefits are concerned. In view of the above we are of the view that the action of opposite parties in not release the entire post retiral benefits or dues to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, cannot be said to be reasonable or legal."

7. The aforesaid judgment has thereafter been followed consistently.

8. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case it is thus evident and as enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court that benefits of gratuity and leave encashment could not have been withheld by the opposite parties merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings.

9. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Kamta Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 19784 of 2016] vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 has also considered Government Order dated 28.10.1980 and has held that the said Government Order does not provide withholding of post-retiral benefits on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- "After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through records of the case, it is found that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner (deceased Kamta Prasad Verma) and as per the Government Order dated 28.10.1980, the gratuity and leave encashment cannot be paid till the finalization of the criminal proceedings. The Government Order dated 28.10.1980 does not provide that during pendency of criminal case, pension or other post retiral benefits can be withheld and the learned State Counsel has failed to bring before this Court on record that there is any provision under the law according to which the pension and other post retiral benefits of a government servant can be deferred or withheld during the pendency of a criminal case. The issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad Ansari (supra) and Harnam Singh Yadav (supra)."

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that impugned order dated 22.06.2023 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari. A further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon competent authority. Petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment.

11. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench